You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 12:25:19 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Hillary for President??  (Read 27502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2006, 05:11:04 PM »
The SECOND AMENDMENT is the most vital it protects the others and is supposed to be the foundation of our national defense. Read the COnstitution do you see a Federal Army mentioned- no. The army is to be made of militias run and organized in each state both standing units of regular soldiers and volunteers. These are to be run by officers appointed by the State leadership, paid for by the States and under command of the State. During a time of conflict the Federal Government via the War Department would Request the States call up their militias and troops for Federal service and they could decline. This is called a Check and Balance an important government concept. Any use of troops would therefore be assured to be a just cause popularly supported, the officials of the State would have to answer to the voters otherwise many in the militias and the principle is to make sure that the defense of this nation was a national effort.

Also if the Federal Government had access to a standing major army the Founding Fathers knew that would lead to abuse and the use of our forces in foreign affairs that were none of our concern. But if the states and the citizenry made up the standing army it assured that the Federal Government to use the might of the United States must have the consent of the people to call forth this force. Other than that the Navy was the Federal Governments only legal weapon.

Is this an outdated idea? Do you think we would have been in most of the wars including WWI which laid the groundwork for the Nazi Party to rise later and Stalinist Communism would have had our involvement. The United States made the situation over there last many years longer odds are if we stayed out of WWI then WWII as it occured would never had happened. Russia would have stayed a democracy, a strong German government that was also democratic would have survived and prospered would have kept Hitler off the radar and maybe the only thing we would have faced would be Japan. Maybe.

The Founding Fathers were wise to make the system state run it would have kept us generally out of foreign wars. And if invaded then the stage is set for our defense with loyal and angry citizen soldiers. That is the balance. And if the Federal Government becomes a threat to the people the states had the power to defend themselves with their armies. As the South felt forced to do and started the Civil War. Don't think citizen troops can fight remember General Lee and his army wrecked havoc with the North with fewer troops and more poorly equipped and was so close to forcing the North to yield at one point. And the Revolutionary War also proved that point.

As for the sorts of guns if modern standard military weapons are AK-47's and similar rifles then they should be used in the sense of a militia we must have weapons equal to the Federal Army in case we must fight our own government. The ultimate tool for the defense of a persons Liberty may be revolution against a government that is not treason its the natural right of humans to protect their freedom.

You think Bush would have the troops to attack Iraq if a militia system was in place now? Not the National Guard that is not a militia the Federal Government still is in charge of the system. Want proof have a governor REFUSE to send Guardsman to Iraq and see who wins.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2006, 05:42:03 PM »
The SECOND AMENDMENT is the most vital it protects the others and is supposed to be the foundation of our national defense. Read the COnstitution do you see a Federal Army mentioned- no. The army is to be made of militias run and organized in each state both standing units of regular soldiers and volunteers. These are to be run by officers appointed by the State leadership, paid for by the States and under command of the State. During a time of conflict the Federal Government via the War Department would Request the States call up their militias and troops for Federal service and they could decline. This is called a Check and Balance an important government concept. Any use of troops would therefore be assured to be a just cause popularly supported, the officials of the State would have to answer to the voters otherwise many in the militias and the principle is to make sure that the defense of this nation was a national effort.

Also if the Federal Government had access to a standing major army the Founding Fathers knew that would lead to abuse and the use of our forces in foreign affairs that were none of our concern. But if the states and the citizenry made up the standing army it assured that the Federal Government to use the might of the United States must have the consent of the people to call forth this force. Other than that the Navy was the Federal Governments only legal weapon.

Is this an outdated idea? Do you think we would have been in most of the wars including WWI which laid the groundwork for the Nazi Party to rise later and Stalinist Communism would have had our involvement. The United States made the situation over there last many years longer odds are if we stayed out of WWI then WWII as it occured would never had happened. Russia would have stayed a democracy, a strong German government that was also democratic would have survived and prospered would have kept Hitler off the radar and maybe the only thing we would have faced would be Japan. Maybe.

The Founding Fathers were wise to make the system state run it would have kept us generally out of foreign wars. And if invaded then the stage is set for our defense with loyal and angry citizen soldiers. That is the balance. And if the Federal Government becomes a threat to the people the states had the power to defend themselves with their armies. As the South felt forced to do and started the Civil War. Don't think citizen troops can fight remember General Lee and his army wrecked havoc with the North with fewer troops and more poorly equipped and was so close to forcing the North to yield at one point. And the Revolutionary War also proved that point.

As for the sorts of guns if modern standard military weapons are AK-47's and similar rifles then they should be used in the sense of a militia we must have weapons equal to the Federal Army in case we must fight our own government. The ultimate tool for the defense of a persons Liberty may be revolution against a government that is not treason its the natural right of humans to protect their freedom.

You think Bush would have the troops to attack Iraq if a militia system was in place now? Not the National Guard that is not a militia the Federal Government still is in charge of the system. Want proof have a governor REFUSE to send Guardsman to Iraq and see who wins.

would love it that way... this country may have not lasted long with each state deciding if they were willing or not to join this or that conflict. but what a fun mess it would be lol

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2006, 08:28:24 PM »
A state always sided with government in a defensive war such as the War of 1812 and yes even the Civil War just each chose different governments they deemed as legal. But you think if the United States was INVADED they would not join the defense. The point of the checks and balance of the SECOND AMENDMENT is to assure that any use of force in the form of the CITIZEN ARMY would be justified. There is nothing that says the Navy can't be huge and that plus the Marines are the only force the Federal Government is allowed in the Constitution. Unlike other powers the Federal Government may have taken the SECOND AMENDMENT is clear in its intent to require a MILITIA as it was understood by the Founding Fathers. That is exactly what I stated above. STATE funded and controlled officers, soldiers and militia forces at whatever standards they set for it.

Remember Britain had a standing national army, France did and other powers that abused that to invade other regions and plunge their countries into wars without a care for what the people wanted. The citizen army system of the United States made sure that would never happen without a threat to the states that meant INVASION of the United States. Or a pressing war where they were convinced that they must send soldiers overseas.

Its also to assure the Federal Government would never be able to take the Liberty of its citizens if the people are well armed and trained to fight then they can defend their Liberty even from the government. And think about it even if half the population of legal age and of good character were so aremd our army would have 100 million persons at least. That is a huge army would anyone dare invade us? And militias did include support trained persons like medical providers, supply experts and the like so not all have to fight some might operate communications systems or drive trucks. But all could take up arms if needed.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2006, 08:40:46 PM »
I'm not arguing hun as I am a California citizen before a US citizen. Born and raised a bear flag boy ;D

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2006, 12:26:46 AM »
Remember Britain had a standing national army, France did and other powers that abused that to invade other regions and plunge their countries into wars without a care for what the people wanted.

Care to actually clarify that one?

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2006, 01:15:48 AM »
Back track to John Mccain.  Where does it say in his plan that it provides amnesty.  I searched and on a new republic,  a right wing conserative blog.  I found nothing but praise for him not having amnesty on it.

Is this a case of those too eager to believe the lies thrown out to muddy the truths with no truth and partial truths.  Is it combining his plan with anothers, such as Teddy Kennedy's who is also a senator.  And thus saying the house plan is better then the senate plan. 

I think the referance to what you ask Elvi, is to the colonial period.   

Now I have to ask one thing,  in regards to if their not been a federal army in ww1 and then leading to Hitler. 

Does that mean that the french revolution that over thru the monarchy of france, would not have led to a short emperor that tried to conquer all of europe.  I mean if the monarchy was still in place.  the kings army could have stopped it.   And there would have been no waterloo.

I believe my Brothers and Dad call that monday morning quarterbacking.  Their is so many other variables you could never say what if. 

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2006, 01:22:21 AM »
Remember Britain had a standing national army, France did and other powers that abused that to invade other regions and plunge their countries into wars without a care for what the people wanted.

Care to actually clarify that one?

Lets see the American Revolution, War of 1812, Chinese Opium War, Domination of India, Subjugation of Africa, Brutal Repression of the Irish and must I go on?

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #57 on: October 27, 2006, 01:31:55 AM »
Back track to John Mccain.† Where does it say in his plan that it provides amnesty.† I searched and on a new republic,† a right wing conserative blog.† I found nothing but praise for him not having amnesty on it.

Is this a case of those too eager to believe the lies thrown out to muddy the truths with no truth and partial truths.† Is it combining his plan with anothers, such as Teddy Kennedy's who is also a senator.† And thus saying the house plan is better then the senate plan.†

I think the referance to what you ask Elvi, is to the colonial period.† †

Now I have to ask one thing,† in regards to if their not been a federal army in ww1 and then leading to Hitler.†

Does that mean that the french revolution that over thru the monarchy of france, would not have led to a short emperor that tried to conquer all of europe.† I mean if the monarchy was still in place.† the kings army could have stopped it.† †And there would have been no waterloo.

I believe my Brothers and Dad call that monday morning quarterbacking.† Their is so many other variables you could never say what if.†


The war was winding down its the US forces that drew out WWI and a militia rmy would have to have been rallied in a Constitutional Army, How many states would pay for their troops to fight in Europe? Spme but enough to wage a long war? The war ended so badly for Germany the other nations humiliated them, that gave rise to the Nazi party. If it ended when would have Germany would likely have stayed stronger economic wise with a strong government.

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #58 on: October 27, 2006, 02:14:42 AM »
Lets see the American Revolution, War of 1812, Chinese Opium War, Domination of India, Subjugation of Africa, Brutal Repression of the Irish and must I go on?

Hate to tell you this, but Britain, up until the first world war, still had a 'feudal' system within the army, based on units from different areas around the country.
Scottish Highlanders, Durham light infantry, Leicester light armoured division, the list goes on.

Infact, up until only a few years ago, there was a town in Cumbria who were still at war with Germany, because there their Malitia refused to sign the treaty after the first world war.

As in every country, it acted as one when the country was under threat, or there was a war to be faught.

BUT if you want to talk about specifics and then generalise them, then I suggest that you get your facts right and then start bringing another country into it to try and back up your vitriol.

Lets have a look at some of those you sited shall we?

Chinese Opium War, The East India Company.
Domination of India, try the East India company.
(Take your pick on which one you want to blame there, they all had their fingers in the pie, the Dutch, French, Portugese, Danish and British all had settlements in India) 

Subjugation of Africa, lets hear it for the Dutch, British, French and Belgiams, if you notice 'pigeon' English and Africans has a distinct none 'British' accent to it.

Brutal Repression of the Irish, oh dear........the British Army influence was only placed there on the request of the Protestant Irish who were afraid that, as they were a minority, they were going to be victimised and that is only 'recent' history, try wandering back into the 15th century for the rest of that history when Irsih landowners began to sell off the lands to the British.

Now all of these were influenced by the British and very much so, though started by the millitery?
No they were influenced by big business, they were not started as Millitery actions.   




« Last Edit: October 27, 2006, 06:49:13 AM by Elvi »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #59 on: October 27, 2006, 09:18:11 AM »
Back track to John Mccain.  Where does it say in his plan that it provides amnesty.  I searched and on a new republic,  a right wing conserative blog.  I found nothing but praise for him not having amnesty on it.

Is this a case of those too eager to believe the lies thrown out to muddy the truths with no truth and partial truths.  Is it combining his plan with anothers, such as Teddy Kennedy's who is also a senator.  And thus saying the house plan is better then the senate plan.

 Alot of people I've talked to and what I've heard over the radio do not like McCain's plan because it does give amnesty, after paying a fine and back taxes. the House plan was much betterrecieved as it focuses on security of the border first and has no amnesty in it for the millions of lawbreakers that have illegally snuck into the US, or overstayed their travel visas.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #60 on: October 27, 2006, 11:06:41 AM »
Back to the topic, I think Obama should run in 08' lose but prove enought to be Vice President, serve in that for two terms THEN run for president. During wartime a Democrat to win must have statesmanship experience. But I think America wants a black man to be president more than it would hurt him. After all Lieberman's faith helped more than hurt him being Jewish or not.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #61 on: October 27, 2006, 12:50:02 PM »
Back track to John Mccain.  Where does it say in his plan that it provides amnesty.  I searched and on a new republic,  a right wing conserative blog.  I found nothing but praise for him not having amnesty on it.

Is this a case of those too eager to believe the lies thrown out to muddy the truths with no truth and partial truths.  Is it combining his plan with anothers, such as Teddy Kennedy's who is also a senator.  And thus saying the house plan is better then the senate plan. 

I think the referance to what you ask Elvi, is to the colonial period.   

Now I have to ask one thing,  in regards to if their not been a federal army in ww1 and then leading to Hitler. 

Does that mean that the french revolution that over thru the monarchy of france, would not have led to a short emperor that tried to conquer all of europe.  I mean if the monarchy was still in place.  the kings army could have stopped it.   And there would have been no waterloo.

I believe my Brothers and Dad call that monday morning quarterbacking.  Their is so many other variables you could never say what if. 


http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/257614.htm

It's not referred to as Amnesty, but that's what it does. It allows a path for citizenship for those who have been in this country illegally after certain criteria are met, instead of deporting them, which should be done. Again, you can call it what you want, but it's no different than amnesty. The Senate Plan is the one that most Americans (75% at last polling) do not want. They want the House Plan with tighter restrictions and border security as the primary focus. Arizonians don't even support their own Senator on this issue.

Those who want to come here legally, should go through the proper channels.

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #62 on: October 27, 2006, 01:06:18 PM »
Oh well dodged Ruby, that way you don't have to say you were wrong.......nor apologise for giving reference to anything that you know nothing of.

Again, I would ask you to clarify something that makes no sense at all to me.....

But I think America wants a black man to be president more than it would hurt him. After all Lieberman's faith helped more than hurt him being Jewish or not.


Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #63 on: October 27, 2006, 01:09:05 PM »
The SECOND AMENDMENT is the most vital it protects the others and is supposed to be the foundation of our national defense. Read the COnstitution do you see a Federal Army mentioned- no. The army is to be made of militias run and organized in each state both standing units of regular soldiers and volunteers. These are to be run by officers appointed by the State leadership, paid for by the States and under command of the State. During a time of conflict the Federal Government via the War Department would Request the States call up their militias and troops for Federal service and they could decline. This is called a Check and Balance an important government concept. Any use of troops would therefore be assured to be a just cause popularly supported, the officials of the State would have to answer to the voters otherwise many in the militias and the principle is to make sure that the defense of this nation was a national effort.

Also if the Federal Government had access to a standing major army the Founding Fathers knew that would lead to abuse and the use of our forces in foreign affairs that were none of our concern. But if the states and the citizenry made up the standing army it assured that the Federal Government to use the might of the United States must have the consent of the people to call forth this force. Other than that the Navy was the Federal Governments only legal weapon.

Is this an outdated idea? Do you think we would have been in most of the wars including WWI which laid the groundwork for the Nazi Party to rise later and Stalinist Communism would have had our involvement. The United States made the situation over there last many years longer odds are if we stayed out of WWI then WWII as it occured would never had happened. Russia would have stayed a democracy, a strong German government that was also democratic would have survived and prospered would have kept Hitler off the radar and maybe the only thing we would have faced would be Japan. Maybe.

The Founding Fathers were wise to make the system state run it would have kept us generally out of foreign wars. And if invaded then the stage is set for our defense with loyal and angry citizen soldiers. That is the balance. And if the Federal Government becomes a threat to the people the states had the power to defend themselves with their armies. As the South felt forced to do and started the Civil War. Don't think citizen troops can fight remember General Lee and his army wrecked havoc with the North with fewer troops and more poorly equipped and was so close to forcing the North to yield at one point. And the Revolutionary War also proved that point.

As for the sorts of guns if modern standard military weapons are AK-47's and similar rifles then they should be used in the sense of a militia we must have weapons equal to the Federal Army in case we must fight our own government. The ultimate tool for the defense of a persons Liberty may be revolution against a government that is not treason its the natural right of humans to protect their freedom.

You think Bush would have the troops to attack Iraq if a militia system was in place now? Not the National Guard that is not a militia the Federal Government still is in charge of the system. Want proof have a governor REFUSE to send Guardsman to Iraq and see who wins.

Actually yes, there is mention of an army separate from the militia's.

' To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; '

Nowhere does this imply that this 'army' mentioned here is the militia. Any strict constitutional interpreter would state that this is reference to a regular army, given that the needs and powers of Congress with regards to a militia are listed elsewhere separately.

All this states is that budgets related to the standing armies are to be appropriated for a period of no more than two years at a time.

The Miliitia, is in effect, the National Guard of each state and male citizens at the time of the constitution were required to keep a firearm and to serve in the militia if they were needed for defense. At the writing of the constitution, the citizens were obligated to help defend the nation if the need arose and that is what the second amendment refers to. You could argue today that in order to bear arms you should be in the militia.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #64 on: October 27, 2006, 01:56:18 PM »
Not exactly true the National Guard is a FEDERAL force under the control of the Federal Government. The militia is made up of STATE controlled and maintained units with State officers and under the so.e command of the Governor and legislature. And it still was there to allow the States to protect themselves from the Federal Government in the event that is needed. Again if a Governor as the Commander of the National Guard refused to commit units being mobilized to a military action it would be acceptable- you know who would win not the Governor. And I agree the Second Amendment is there to protect the right to have a MILITIA not a blanket right to own a gun its a fine point.

Lieberman's Jewish faith meant much to even Christian voters as a man of faith is a virtue. It didn't matter in the end and neither I feel would the fact a man running for president was black. More poeple would see it as a benefit over a drawback in the end I think overall in voting concerns.

Now as for the British Army then if a segment of the Crown refused to serve the Crown in a foreign war it would be acceptable at the time? Like the Welsh Bowmen decided to say fuck the king we are not going to France to fight. You know the attack would have been devestating on any state in England doing that. Therefore they had a national army under national control even if the parts were more local forces based. The militia always had control at the state level as the British found out when they states rose up to fight the British.

The East India Company as far as I'm concerned was an extension of the British Government and it was as far as I could tell the British Fleet engaged with the Chinese and the regular army had to intervene when they were in trouble in several locations. You think I excuse the fact they were private they still were chartered as a company in Britain and Britain let them act so they were de facto agents of the crown. Kind of like Walmart they are officially a US company and answer to US Law so to that company answered to the British Government so when they acted it was by default a British action. So the Opium War was a British war and if I remember the parliment voted to support the East India Company even supplying naval ships to protect them.

So I'm not wrong your just dodging me saying that the East India Company and other actions were not the British Government when I see them as a convenient lacky of your government in the past.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2006, 01:57:56 PM by RubySlippers »

Offline Elvi

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #65 on: October 27, 2006, 02:20:12 PM »
Several 'companies' within the millitery have refused to fight, when they were Militia.
The Welsh were what you say they were.....Welsh and if Wales had refused to fight then they would not have.

But now, you change what you say.
Now the British Government is the army?
You were talking of millitery action and saying that Britain reaked havoc in other countries because they had a unified force.

You also do not acknowledge anything else that I have said about the other points you raised, that being that Britain was not the only country involved in any of the examples you gave.

The British East India company was a huge big business, much like any conglomerate in the USA.
So.......an oil  company in the middle east or a logging company backing the clearance of hard woods in a country other than the USA is a millitery excercise?

American big business also backed the IRA for decades, are we to say, in your mind that America sent Millitery forces into Northern Ireland?
 

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #66 on: October 27, 2006, 02:23:56 PM »
It is true.

 In 1903 the State Militias were divided into two branches. The Organized State Militia's became the National Guard, while the unorganized militia's basically remained intact. The unorganized state militias are nothing more than all able bodied males '17-45' who are not in the Armed Forces in any branch, and who will take up arms if needed.

It is this second branch that is the Militia referred to in the US Constitution, however it has no structure or organization whatsoever.

Offline slavetomydesire

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #67 on: November 18, 2006, 06:10:15 AM »
That's actually not true Zakharra.

22nd amendment Section 1-

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

It does not bar anyone from running for VP after being president, nor does it bar someone from becoming a representative and possibly Speaker of the House who would be next in line after being president. It only bars one from being ELECTED to be president.

As far as the original question goes, I am not really a Hillary fan but I think she would make an okay President if elected. But in reponse to someone who posted. Saying Hillary is too far left must be a joke. She is one of the most centrist Senators in congress. As far as I'm concerned she's practically a Republican which is why I don't care for her all that much.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #68 on: November 19, 2006, 11:14:26 AM »
 It would bar him from becoming President ever again. There would be a huge Constitutional conflict to come up over that if he was VP and the President died.
 

 Hillary is not centrist to m ost of the nation. She is very left. Her voting record supports that and what she has done in the past. I ignore what she says to get votes because, like all politicians, she is lying thru her teeth. Centrist she is not. Leftist, she is. Remember HillaryCare? That was a colossal boondoggle, and would have been a disaster is she had succeeded. Having the US government nationalize 1/7 of the US ecomony? I shudder at that thought.

 If she ever gets to be President, Goddess forbid that, then the Congress had better be Republican, or you will be seeing the Socialist United States of America being formed.

Offline slavetomydesire

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2006, 01:51:40 PM »
If you think Hillary's voting record is leftist you need to examine some other congresscritters voting records for comparision. She is one of the most moderate democrats in congress.

As soon as you start talking about the socializing healthcare thing I see Senator McCarthy and the red scare. So much blind fear and hatred of something most of the people who are afraid of it know nothing about. This country could do with being a little more socialist.

God forbid we should actually want to take care of our citizens and not drive them into the poor-house when they get sick.

Offline Sugarman (hal)

  • Mind is the perfection of love making, the heart guides its course.
  • At Rest
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2006
  • Location: Iím lost! Iíve gone looking for myself.
  • Gender: Male
  • Free Tibet
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #70 on: November 19, 2006, 02:01:30 PM »
As soon as you start talking about the socializing healthcare thing I see Senator McCarthy and the red scare. So much blind fear and hatred of something most of the people who are afraid of it know nothing about. This country could do with being a little more socialist.

God forbid we should actually want to take care of our citizens and not drive them into the poor-house when they get sick.

Amen to that. Conservative = "I'm in this world for me, myself and mine, and the hell with anyone outside that circle."

Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #71 on: November 19, 2006, 05:38:50 PM »
If you think Hillary's voting record is leftist you need to examine some other congresscritters voting records for comparision. She is one of the most moderate democrats in congress.

As soon as you start talking about the socializing healthcare thing I see Senator McCarthy and the red scare. So much blind fear and hatred of something most of the people who are afraid of it know nothing about. This country could do with being a little more socialist.

God forbid we should actually want to take care of our citizens and not drive them into the poor-house when they get sick.

  What has she  done that is conservative? She's still a Democrat and a very dicisive one for the party. What Hillary wantyed wityh healthcare was government run healthcare. That is, or was at the time, 1/7 of the US economy. Do you expect the government to be able to run it efficiently without massive tax increases and waste?

 I'm not against taking care of people, but ONLY those who really need it. Not the damed sponges and soakers that use and abuse the system. We should not take care of those who can do it themselves.

 
Amen to that. Conservative = "I'm in this world for me, myself and mine, and the hell with anyone outside that circle."

 Not quite. That's  as biased as Liberal = socialist, tax raising , big government, I know better than the peons.
 Most conservatives want the government to just leave them alone. What governs least, governs best. A all doing government is NOT efficient. If I need help, I'll gladly take it, but I do not want the government telling me what I have to do, where and when. No cradle to grave entitlements.

Offline Elven Sex Goddess

  • All doorways lead to adventure.
  • Lady
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Location: In the mind's canvas of life's eroticism.
  • Gender: Female
  • "Imagination is the fruit of sensuality"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #72 on: November 19, 2006, 11:19:17 PM »
  What has she  done that is conservative? She's still a Democrat and a very dicisive one for the party. What Hillary wantyed wityh healthcare was government run healthcare. That is, or was at the time, 1/7 of the US economy. Do you expect the government to be able to run it efficiently without massive tax increases and waste?

 I'm not against taking care of people, but ONLY those who really need it. Not the damed sponges and soakers that use and abuse the system. We should not take care of those who can do it themselves.

 
 Not quite. That's  as biased as Liberal = socialist, tax raising , big government, I know better than the peons.
 Most conservatives want the government to just leave them alone. What governs least, governs best. A all doing government is NOT efficient. If I need help, I'll gladly take it, but I do not want the government telling me what I have to do, where and when. No cradle to grave entitlements.

Wow a Carl Rowe disciple,  politics at best polarized.

Funny thou that most republicans distance them selfs from the right and the President this past election.  Moving more to a moderate position. 

Personally the past 6 years shows what one party in control does.  Just like the democrats had done.  They don't think it is all about special interests of their parties. 

So the best thing we could have is a Republican president with a Democratic Congress.  Or vice a versa.

I want a right to choice.  Not be dictated by someone else that says I should. 

If gay people want to marry, who cares.

No raise in taxes is a good thing.

Less influence into regulating business is also good. 

But protecting the environment is a must.

A better foreign policy that is not based on how to manipulate the politics at home. 

Or better yet how about a raise in minimum wage at the federal level.   


Offline Zakharra

Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #73 on: November 20, 2006, 12:21:11 AM »
Wow a Carl Rowe disciple,  politics at best polarized.

Funny thou that most republicans distance them selfs from the right and the President this past election.  Moving more to a moderate position. 

Personally the past 6 years shows what one party in control does.  Just like the democrats had done.  They don't think it is all about special interests of their parties. 

So the best thing we could have is a Republican president with a Democratic Congress.  Or vice a versa.

1I want a right to choice.  Not be dictated by someone else that says I should. 

2If gay people want to marry, who cares.

3No raise in taxes is a good thing.

4Less influence into regulating business is also good. 

5But protecting the environment is a must.

6A better foreign policy that is not based on how to manipulate the politics at home. 

7Or better yet how about a raise in minimum wage at the federal level.   

 1) A good theroy, but not practical with the way canditates are chosen for the federal level. Wether Congressional or Presidential races

 2) I have no problem with that. Marriage has nothing to do with religion anymore.

 3) Always a good thing. :)

 4) Definately. Some regulation is good, but too much stiffles everything.

 5) That depends. How much protection are you asking for? total? Partial? Enviromental protection is needed, but the amount can harm or help, depending.

 6) All foreign policy is partially dicated by that. In every nation. So that is a dream at best. Unless you have a nation that is willing to do things that are not in it's political/national security best interest

 7) Depends how high of a raise. Rasing the min wage affects more than the big companies, it also affects the medium to small compaanies with more limited budgets. A higher min wage measn thay might not be able to afford more employees, or even the same employees they currently have.

Offline National Acrobat

  • Elliquiy's Resident Heavy Metallurgist
  • Knight
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location: Virginia, USA
  • Gender: Male
  • Black candles burn, all minds aligned
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Hillary for President??
« Reply #74 on: November 20, 2006, 10:36:04 AM »
Quote
7) Depends how high of a raise. Rasing the min wage affects more than the big companies, it also affects the medium to small compaanies with more limited budgets. A higher min wage measn thay might not be able to afford more employees, or even the same employees they currently have.

So true. I work for a small company, and my boss has already said that if the minimum wage goes up, we can at least expect to not hire the summer help that we always have to help out with phones in the office during the summer. (I work for a property management company that handles Air Conditioning/Heating and Refrigeration for large Chain Stores nationwide).

We are slammed from May-September, and depend on that additional help. However, if the Minimum Wage goes up, it's gone.

Also, our newest hire may be let go if that happens as well.